沒收到驗證郵件？請確認郵箱是否正確或 重新發(fā)送郵件
#文章僅代表作者觀點，未經(jīng)作者許可，禁止轉(zhuǎn)載，文章不代表IPRdaily立場#
來源：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）
作者：馮超【1】 北京天達共和律師事務所
原標題：簡評兩辦《關(guān)于加強知識產(chǎn)權(quán)審判領(lǐng)域改革創(chuàng)新若干問題的意見》
2018年2月6日，中共中央辦公廳和國務院辦公廳聯(lián)合出臺了《關(guān)于加強知識產(chǎn)權(quán)審判領(lǐng)域改革創(chuàng)新若干問題的意見》（以下稱“《意見》”），2月27日，《意見》全文公布。2月28日，最高人民法院副院長陶凱元在國務院新聞發(fā)布會上介紹了《意見》出臺的有關(guān)情況，并接受了記者采訪。筆者對上述意見內(nèi)容進行如下介紹和簡評。
《意見》共包含“總體要求”、“完善知識產(chǎn)權(quán)訴訟制度”、“加強知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法院體系建設(shè)”、“加強知識產(chǎn)權(quán)審判隊伍建設(shè)”和“加強組織領(lǐng)導”四個部分。
一、總體要求
《意見》認為，創(chuàng)造和創(chuàng)新是構(gòu)建知識產(chǎn)權(quán)強國、科技強國這一國家戰(zhàn)略的重要基礎(chǔ)，知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護是鼓勵創(chuàng)造和創(chuàng)新的根本手段和重要保障。
筆者簡評：
本次《意見》是我國最高黨政領(lǐng)導機關(guān)聯(lián)合出臺的第一份強調(diào)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護是驅(qū)動創(chuàng)新發(fā)展的主要手段的綱領(lǐng)性文件。
二、完善知識產(chǎn)權(quán)訴訟制度
1. 建立符合知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件特點的訴訟證據(jù)規(guī)則
《意見》要求完善證據(jù)保全制度，充分發(fā)揮專家輔助人的重要作用。更為重要的是，《意見》提出適當加大人民法院依職權(quán)調(diào)查取證力度，充分發(fā)揮公證機關(guān)在知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件中固定證據(jù)的作用，探索建立證據(jù)披露規(guī)則，合理分配舉證責任，適當減輕權(quán)利人舉證負擔，著力破解知識產(chǎn)權(quán)權(quán)利人“舉證難”問題。
筆者簡評：
在以往的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)審判中，人民法院對于依職權(quán)調(diào)取證據(jù)一般比較謹慎。本次《意見》提出適當加大人民法院依職權(quán)主動調(diào)查取證的力度，這將成為權(quán)利人在缺乏證據(jù)開釋制度而導致取證困難的情況下的一種有效的取證手段。
既往部分中國法院曾經(jīng)在被告拒絕提供與其侵權(quán)行為獲利有關(guān)的證據(jù)的情況下，通過采納第三方披露的關(guān)于被告非法獲利的證據(jù)而做出有利于權(quán)利人的判決。《意見》還提出探討證據(jù)披露制度，明確按照《民事訴訟法》的有關(guān)規(guī)定，合理分配舉證責任。
2. 健全知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)損害賠償制度
《意見》要求從根本上破解知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)訴訟“賠償?shù)汀钡膯栴}，充分發(fā)揮社會組織、中介機構(gòu)在知識產(chǎn)權(quán)價值評估中的作用，著力構(gòu)建以補償為主、懲罰為輔的侵權(quán)損害司法認定機制。
《意見》強調(diào)，對于具有重復侵權(quán)、惡意侵權(quán)以及其他嚴重侵權(quán)情節(jié)的，可依法判決懲罰性賠償，提高賠償數(shù)額，以有效遏制和威懾侵犯知識產(chǎn)權(quán)行為。
筆者簡評：
侵權(quán)損害賠償?shù)挠嬎阋廊皇且粋€難題。既往判決當中，權(quán)利人往往難以提出有效的證據(jù)證明實際損失或者侵權(quán)人獲利的數(shù)據(jù)，導致難以獲得應有的賠償金額。知識產(chǎn)權(quán)價值評估機構(gòu)的積極參與將有助于改善現(xiàn)有狀況，提高損害賠償金額。
《商標法》以及《專利法》修正案中均引入了懲罰性賠償?shù)闹贫?，這一修改將有助于提高損害賠償數(shù)額，有效遏制惡意侵權(quán)行為。
3. 推進符合知識產(chǎn)權(quán)訴訟規(guī)律的裁判方式改革
《意見》強調(diào)進一步發(fā)揮知識產(chǎn)權(quán)司法保護的主導作用，依法加強對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)行政行為的司法審查，促進知識產(chǎn)權(quán)行政執(zhí)法標準與司法裁判標準的統(tǒng)一?！兑庖姟芬笸晟浦R產(chǎn)權(quán)案例指導制度，改進裁判方式，推進知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件繁簡分流。
筆者簡評：
從五年前對于《專利法》修訂的討論開始，知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的司法保護制度就被經(jīng)常和行政保護制度相提并論，而本次《意見》強調(diào)了司法保護在知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護中的重要性。
此外，陶副院長也在《意見》發(fā)布的新聞發(fā)布會上強調(diào)，知識產(chǎn)權(quán)司法保護依然將會是知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)的基本和首要的救濟途徑。此外，為了滿足權(quán)利人的需要，人民法院將進一步提高司法保護的質(zhì)量和效率。陶副院長還介紹說，北京知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法院受理案件的30%為涉外案件。她表示通過建立一支精通法律、熟悉技術(shù)并具有國際視野的審判隊伍，有信心將中國法院打造成當事人信賴的國際知識產(chǎn)權(quán)爭端解決“優(yōu)選地”。
4. 統(tǒng)一知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件裁判標準
《意見》多次強調(diào)最高人民法院關(guān)于進一步統(tǒng)一裁判標準的要求。其中，陶凱元副院長提到了三項主要的具體措施，分別是最高人民法院直接審理案件，頒布出臺司法解釋和司法意見以及發(fā)布指導案例。
關(guān)于案例指導制度，陶凱元副院長明確指出：
（1）在最高人民法院迄今為止發(fā)布的92件指導性案例中，有20件是知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件；
（2）北京知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法院開始在判決書引用指導性案例進行法律分析和說理；
（3）由最高人民法院發(fā)布的指導性案例雖然沒有法定拘束力，但下級法院在審判類似案例時“應當參照”；
（4）具有指導意義的案件不僅包括最高人民法院正式發(fā)布的指導案例，也包括每年知識產(chǎn)權(quán)日（4月26日）發(fā)布的十大知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件和50大典型案例；
（5）最高人民法院在北京設(shè)立了指導案例研究基地以促進完善案例指導工作。
三、加強知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法院體系建設(shè)
1. 建立健全知識產(chǎn)權(quán)審判制度
《意見》要求，研究建立國家層面知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件上訴審理機制，實現(xiàn)有關(guān)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件審理專門化、管轄集中化、程序集約化和人員專業(yè)化，從根本上解決知識產(chǎn)權(quán)裁判尺度不統(tǒng)一、訴訟程序復雜等制約科技創(chuàng)新的體制性難題。
筆者簡評：
在北京、上海以及廣州設(shè)立知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法院的舉措極大地促進了知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件審理隊伍的專業(yè)化和管轄的集中化。而知識產(chǎn)權(quán)上訴法院的建立意味著將專門的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法院進一步推廣到其他省份，最終覆蓋全國并建立國家層面的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)上訴法院制度。
2. 探索跨地區(qū)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件異地審理機制
《意見》要求，充分整合京津冀三地法院審判優(yōu)勢資源，探索北京知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法院集中管轄京津冀地區(qū)技術(shù)類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件。
筆者簡評：
北京知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法院在知識產(chǎn)權(quán)審判工作中發(fā)揮的重要作用得到了廣泛地認可，尤其是和天津、河北地區(qū)的同類型法院相比優(yōu)勢突出。京津冀三地知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件由北京知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法院集中管轄的提議將有助于提升天津和河北地區(qū)的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件審判水平。
四、加強組織協(xié)調(diào)工作
《意見》提出，積極推進人民法院組織法、專利法、著作權(quán)法、有關(guān)訴訟法等相關(guān)法律的修訂工作，研究制定符合知識產(chǎn)權(quán)審判規(guī)律的特別程序法，加強知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件專門審判組織、訴訟管轄、證據(jù)規(guī)則、審理程序和裁判方式的法律化、制度化。
General Office of Communist Party of China and State Council issued Opinion regarding Reform and Innovation for Trial of Intellectual Property Cases
On February 6, 2018, General Office of Chinese Communist Party and State Council jointly issued the official document namely “Opinion regarding Improvement of Reform and Innovation for Intellectual Property related Trials” (the “Opinion”). Vice President of Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”), Judge Tao, made interpretation to the IP Opinion during the press conference and was interviewed following the issuance on February 27.
The IP Opinion consisting of four parts includes the General Requirement, Perfection of IP Trial System, Enhancement of IP Court System, and Improvement of Arrangement and Coordination, which were specified as follows.
I. General Requirement
The Opinion positioned the IP protection issue as the basic measure for encouragement and guarantee to innovation and creation that builds the foundation to the National Strategy to establish a Nation that is strong in IP as well as science and technology.
Comments by Charles Feng
The Opinion was the first strategic document issued by CPC and State Council, the top administrative body of China, which declared the IP protection as the major approach to protect innovation and development.
II. Perfection of IP Trial System
1. Establishment of Evidentiary Rule that suits the characteristics of trial for IP cases
The Opinion illustrated the importance of perfection of evidence preservation system; fulfill the function of expert assessor. More importantly, the Opinion emphasized the importance of ex officio evidence collection by court without application of related parties, the utilization of notary public for the purpose of evidence collection and recognition, the importance of establishment of rules for discovery, reasonable distribution of burden of proof and appropriate alleviation of burden of proof for right owners, in order to overcome the difficulties for evidence production.
Comments by Charles Feng:
In the past, the Chinese courts have been generally cautious in conducting evidence preservation for right owners. The newly stressed ex officio evidence collection will likely be a useful approach for IP owners in possible judicial actions where the evidence collection was difficult due to the absence of discovery procedure.
The document also mentioned the establishment of rules for discovery, reasonable distribution of burden of proof, specifically under Article 75 of Civil Procedure Law of PRC, and a few Chinese courts which have decided in favor of right owners by adopting the evidence on illegal revenue unofficially disclosed by third parties where the defendant refused to produce evidence to prove the actual profits made by infringing activities.
2. Improvement to the Calculation System for Damages
The Opinion stressed the importance of fulfillment of function of intermediary organizations in evaluation of intellectual properties, in order to establish judicial recognition mechanism for the compensation to right owner as major objective as well as punishment to infringers as auxiliary objective and fundamentally fix the problem of “l(fā)ow damages”.
The Opinion also stressed the necessity of punitive damages against repeated infringements, willful infringements as well as other serious infringements, to effectively deter IP infringements.
Comments by Charles Feng:
The calculation of damages remains a difficult issue. Due to absence of discovery procedure, IP owners always fail to produce effective evidence to prove the actual amount of damages and, consequently, fail to acquire the ideal compensation that they deserve. The active involvements of evaluation organs will likely help to improve the current situation resulting in higher amount for damages.
The punitive damages have been introduced to the 2013 Trademark law, as well as drafted Amendment of Patent Law. Such amendment will facilitate the ruling of higher amount of damages and deterrence against willful infringements.
3. Promotion of Reform of IP Trial System
The document emphasized the fulfillment of the function of judicial protection as the major remedies to IP infringements; enhancement of the judicial supervision against IP related administrative actions and advancement of unification of standards of administrative enforcement and judicial trial. The Opinion also emphasized the perfection of Case Guidance System as well as the division of simple and complicated cases.
Comments by Charles:
The Opinion emphasized the importance of judicial protection for IP which has been frequently compared with administrative protection system, particularly during the discussion of amendment to Patent Law since five years ago.
Judge Tao emphasized during the press conference that judicial protection will remain to be the fundamental and principal remedies for IP infringements. In addition, Chinese courts will further promote the efficiency and completion for judicial protection to satisfy the needs of right holders.
Judge Tao also introduced that 30% of cases tried by Beijing IP Court were foreign related cases and vowed to make Chinese courts the preferred priority venue for lawsuits initiated by multinational IP owners by establishing an IP judicial team that is proficient in law, technology and one with an international vision.
4. Unification of Standard
The Opinion repeatedly empathized the desire of Supreme People’s Court to further improve the unification of standard of judgments. Among others, Judge Tao mentioned three major approaches including trial of cases, Judicial Interpretation and Judicial Opinion as well as Guidance Cases.
With regard to Guidance Cases System, Judge Tao pointed out the following:
(1) Supreme Court has published 92 Guiding Cases, which include merely 20 IP cases.
(2) Beijing IP Court has started to quote the Guiding Cases in its Judgments to illustrate the legal issues and analysis
(3) The Guiding Cases published by Supreme Court although not binding should be referred by other courts.
(4) Guiding cases include not only the official Guiding Cases（指導案例） of the Supreme Court but also the Top 10 IP cases and 50 Model Cases published annually for IP Day (4/26).
(5) Supreme Court has established Guiding Case Research Base（指導案例研究基地）in Beijing.
III. Perfection of IP Court System
1. Establish the complete IP Trial System
The Opinion confirms to conduct research regarding the establishment of IP appellate court system, in order to realize the professionalization of personnel and concentrated jurisdiction and to fundamentally solve the problems of disunities standard of trial of IP cases, complication of trial procedure and other obstacles.
Comments by Charles Feng:
The establishment of IP Court in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou have substantially contributed to the professionalization of personnel and concentrated jurisdiction.
The establishment of IP appellate court in the discussion refers to further expansion of the IP professional court system in other provinces aiming to cover the entire country and finalize the nation-wide appellate court system.
2. Exploration of establishment of Concentrated Jurisdiction for cases in Different provinces
Fully systemize the resources of Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei province, in order to explore the concentrated jurisdiction in Beijing for technical IP cases in Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei Province.
Comments by Charles Feng:
The competence of IP court in Beijing has been widely recognized particularly has advantage against its peers in Tianjin and Hebei. The consideration of concentrated jurisdiction for Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei will likely help to improve the level of trial in the other two provinces.
IV. Improvement of Arrangement and Coordination of IP Trial
The Opinion promised to actively promote the amendment of People’s Court Organization Law, Patent Law, Copyright Law and other procedural laws, as well as to research special procedural law for IP trial, in order to systemize the organization of courts, jurisdiction, evidentiary rule, procedure and method of trial.
注：【1】畢業(yè)于美國杜克大學和中國外交學院，獲得法學碩士學位；最高人民法院案例指導中心咨詢專家；ALB中國15佳知識產(chǎn)權(quán)律師之一(2015年)。LegalBand杰出知識產(chǎn)權(quán)訴訟律師（2016年、2017年）；馮律師代理的案件還曾入選最高人民法院2013年50大知識產(chǎn)權(quán)典型案例。
來源：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）
作者：馮超 北京天達共和律師事務所
編輯：IPRdaily趙珍 校對：IPRdaily縱橫君
推薦閱讀
2017全球區(qū)塊鏈企業(yè)專利排行榜（前100名）
2017年企業(yè)發(fā)明授權(quán)專利排行榜（前100名）
2017全國申請人確權(quán)商標持有量排名（前100名）
“投稿”請投郵箱“iprdaily@163.com”
「關(guān)于IPRdaily」
IPRdaily成立于2014年，是全球影響力的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)媒體+產(chǎn)業(yè)服務平臺，致力于連接全球知識產(chǎn)權(quán)人，用戶匯聚了中國、美國、德國、俄羅斯、以色列、澳大利亞、新加坡、日本、韓國等15個國家和地區(qū)的高科技公司、成長型科技企業(yè)IP高管、研發(fā)人員、法務、政府機構(gòu)、律所、事務所、科研院校等全球近50多萬產(chǎn)業(yè)用戶（國內(nèi)25萬+海外30萬）；同時擁有近百萬條高質(zhì)量的技術(shù)資源+專利資源，通過媒體構(gòu)建全球知識產(chǎn)權(quán)資產(chǎn)信息第一入口。2016年獲啟賦資本領(lǐng)投和天使匯跟投的Pre-A輪融資。
（英文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.com 中文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.cn）
本文來自IPRdaily.cn 中文網(wǎng)并經(jīng)IPRdaily.cn中文網(wǎng)編輯。轉(zhuǎn)載此文章須經(jīng)權(quán)利人同意，并附上出處與作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立場，如若轉(zhuǎn)載，請注明出處：“http://jupyterflow.com/”
共發(fā)表文章文章不錯，犒勞下辛苦的作者吧
- 我也說兩句
- 還可以輸入140個字
